U.S. to Gain Access to EU Retained Data

shenanigans writes "After the EU recently ratified controversial data retention laws for ISPs and other telecommunication companies, it now looks like the US government will get full access to the data. From the article: 'US authorities can get access to EU citizens' data on phone calls, sms and emails, giving a recent EU data-retention law much wider-reaching consequences than first expected'. Apparently, the US has been calling members of the EU to 'ensure that the data collected [...] be accessible to them'."

Comments

No surprise

[suv4x4]

We know no country in the world misses a chance to be US's little bitch.

Those who do, get attacked.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new American overlords....

Hmmmm, hey wait!!!!

Re:No surprise

[Ohreally_factor]

Well, it's about time that the civil liberties of the citizens of some other country were attacked by the US government. We don't want to hog all the totalitarianism.

Well, it's only fair.

[Bacon Bits]

I mean, the US is based on equality. Might as well invade everyone's privacy equally, right?

But don't worry, the US Government would never abuse that information! That would be unethical. That's why everyone in the US is so pleased with the President and his national security policies.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[Cheapy]

Despite your sarcasm, I think it's important to point out one thing. The people who support the Invasions of Privacy are those who are afraid of the Terrorists (boo!).

Even though you have a higher chance of dying from car accidents (why don't we ban all cars?), people are scared shitless of terrorists.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[liliafan]

The purpose of terrorism is to promote terror, given the way people are so afraid of terrorist, I would say Bush and Co have done a great job advertising for terrorists.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[Bacon Bits]

We were scared of Communists, too. I seem to remember surviving the Cold War with my rights intact.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[czarangelus]

Maybe the real problem is our civilization is leading an unsustainable existence. If one person can disrupt the lives of 300,000,000, then it is almost inevitable that eventually someone crazy enough to try it will come along. If you put too many rats in a cage, eventually they will start killing one another even if there's more than enough food and water for them to survive.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[laughingcoyote]

I'm not scared of dying from a terrorist attack per se, I'm afraid of the effect on civilization.

So, GP was right-let's not worry too much about it, and all the "effects" you listed on civilization go away. They're results of our own fear and hysteria. Statistically, you've got less chance of dying in a terrorist attack then from a lightning strike OR a car accident-and yet, I bet if you need to, you're very willing to go out and drive your car during a thunderstorm. Me too. Why? Because I refuse to live in fear of every remote possibility.

People are afraid to build tall buildings because they might be a target.

Which is their right...

We have bag searches at all major public events.

Which is no one's right, see Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. This should be stopped at once.

Government intrusions into privacy is just a symptom of a larger attack on civilization by the terrorists

Absolutely wrong. This is a symptom of:

1. The tendency of government to increase its power given the opportunity. Terrorism only provided the OPPORTUNITY to pass measures like the "PATRIOT" Act--it did NOT provide the will to do so.
2. The arrogant belief of the current administration and Congress that they are above the law and Constitution, and the reluctance of anyone (including in some cases the Supreme Court!) to rein them in, sharply if necessary.
3. The refusal of the population in general to accept that sometimes random events will be human-caused, and that sometimes we should simply accept them as random. Sometimes, a school getting shot up or a plane getting crashed does NOT necessitate "someone" doing "something"-you must first determine if the cure is worse then the disease.

When these people are exterminated, there will no longer be a reason for these problems, and things can go back to the way it used to be when we didn't have to be paranoid and cautious.

I see. So they're really looking out for us, and they'll quit breaking the law just as soon as those other nasty people go away?

In short, don't blame politicians for being overly cautious -- that's their job.

Actually, HERE. for example, is the President's job:

"Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (President's Oath of Office). (emphasis added).

The job of politicians is to solve problems using a CERTAIN set of tools, provided by the US Constitution. It is not their job to "manufacture" tools outside of that framework-unless they want to undertake the arduous task of amending the Constitution. It is possible to do so! It was made very difficult, and for GOOD reason. However, until lawmakers -do- undertake and succeed at that process, they should not be able to step outside the Constitutional framework.

They can't just sit back and do nothing, their job is to solve problems, even if you don't like the solutions.

Actually, as I recall, their job IS to find solutions people like-that's why we have elections. Their job is also to find solutions which are legal and Constitutional to implement-that's why we have judicial review. Their job is NOT "whatever I feel like today", it's to work -within- an existing framework.

When the problem goes away, so will these privacy issues.

There has always been terrorism, and there always will be. It's like the disingenuous "But when we win the War on Drugs we'll give back all the privacy we took away in its name!" while knowing damn well that their "war" is unwinnable. The "War on Terror" is the same way--it's ALWAYS going to be possible to inspire terror

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[diegocgteleline.es]

The people who support the Invasions of Privacy are those who are afraid of the Terrorists

Are those people aware that bad foreign politics have contributed quite a bit to make people attack america and that only good politics and not spying citiziens will fix it?

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[ericspinder]

Right... McCarthy, FBI spying on peace groups, Watergate, need I list more?

McCarthy was booted out of office. FBI was restricted from those activities (maybe until just recently), and we all know what happened at Watergate. I think that we are FINALLY building to blow back, I just fear the we may not get the congress we need to impeach him. If we could impeach Clinton for a perfectly legal sex act, then we can impeach Bush for being an dangerous idiot.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[hazem]

If we could impeach Clinton for a perfectly legal sex act, then we can impeach Bush for being an dangerous idiot.

I hate what Bush is doing about as much as one can. But let's be honest in our arguments. Clinton was not impeached for having oral sex in the White House. He was impeached for lying about it in a grand jury.

I have to admit that this Republican party just amazes me. Reagan used to joke that the scariest words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help you." The same party that lives by that joke now simply rolls over every time the government steps up its intrusion into our lives. Government keeping records on people's conversations and comings and goings used to be anathema. Now they consider anyone who challenges such things as being in league with the terrorists. This party, who doesn't trust the government to educate children, feed the poor, and build roads somehow as no problem trusting this government to collect every bit of information about each person's life and not abuse it.

Do the terrorists really scare the Republicans and conservatives so much?

We've gone from a country that once celebrated "give me liberty or give me death" to one that now cowers with "oh great government, please protect me from those scary terrorists and liberals."

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[ericspinder]

He was impeached for lying about it in a grand jury.

He was held innocent by the Senate because the instructions from the court about what 'sex' was for his questioning specifically didn't include 'oral sex'. Frankly, I think it was a trap, which he walked right into, not his brightest move (surprising really, I guess that happened because he kept Hillary out of the loop).

The real reason why Clinton was impeached was because they could. The corrupt, and adulterous Republican neo-conservitive leaders found that it was an issue they could use to wrap the public around their fingers (AND IT WORKED, well enough to control congress and the executive branch within 4 years).

I'm not saying that we could get the Senate to convict, just that Bush NEEDS a public spanking. While many would call it a tit-for-tat game, I would say that Bush is a dangerous fool, who has cost many, many, many human lives. Previous to him most would claim that Grant was our worst president, I think that Bush will be remembered worse.

Yea, Reagan, I loved that old guy, it's too bad that the good parts of his legacy were co-opted by the self-serving neo-conservitive bastards who are now in firm control of our government (thanks, Florida, Ohio, and all of those gerrymandered house districts in Texas.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[laughingcoyote]

I don't feel like debating this; I made my point, and it stands on its own.

Translation: I believe this, my mind is closed, and I will persist in believing that anyone who disagrees is wrong despite my lack of ability to assert it.

Private events such as concerts, sporting events, etc, can insist on strip searches if they want.

And you state my assertion is incorrect? Right to privacy is a guarantee that applies in all circumstances. Let a private party insist on strip searches if they like. They will shortly be getting hit with a massive lawsuit.

Note the same point can be made about the first amendment when fools scream about censorship by a private entity.

While this situation is trickier, the courts have indeed limited the power of "private entities" to restrict or attempt to restrict free speech. When we have corporations which in many ways rival the government in power and influence, should we not restrict their abilities to infringe upon those things we have established as fundamental rights?

Also, your distinction between "public" and "private" falls a bit flat--most such searches are conducted or assisted by law enforcement, and therefore should fall under every bit the same restrictions.

Finally, the Constitution establishes RIGHTS, as do several treaties which the US has signed and ratified. These are meaningless if only the "government" is prohibited from taking them away-would you be happy if the government was forbidden to kill you, but anyone else who wished to was free to do so?

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[spuzzzzzzz]

The purpose of terrorism is to promote terror

Uhh... no. The purpose of terrorism is to advance political or ideological goals by the use of violence or the threat of violence, sometimes against civilians, to exert pressure on those in power.

While you are correct, I think the GP's point is valid (if poorly stated). The threat of violence only brings about change if people are afraid. If we would stop responding to terrorism with fear, terrorism would no longer be successful.

I think FDR's famous quote has never been more relevant.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[Alan Partridge]

Funny, those are EXACTLY the same reasons I'm afraid of the USA and Israel. They believe that they're right, that God is on their side and that that makes them better than others.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[thedletterman]

"let's not worry too much about it, and all the "effects" you listed on civilization go away. They're results of our own fear and hysteria."

They re the results of terrorism. Terrorists are not "imagined" and we are not "hysterical". They are dangerous people, and acts of terrorism can be prevented.

Statistically, you've got less chance of dying in a terrorist attack then from a lightning strike OR a car accident-and yet, I bet if you need to, you're very willing to go out and drive your car during a thunderstorm. Me too.

Horrible comparison, you are shielded from lightning in your car. I'm pretty sure you can't go out and play golf in a thunderstorm. Is it because people are hysterical and paranoid? No, it's because a practical effort of safety goes a long way in saving lives.

Why? Because I refuse to live in fear of every remote possibility.

I would simply argue that being complacent to the risks of terrorism makes another attack inevitable. After digging out rubble at the World Trade Center with my bare hands to try to uncover survivors, I'd rather see the government taking action to prevent attacks, than trying to recover from another attack, especially one that doesn't kill me, but instead devastates the city where I live and work. Why bother building levees in New Orleans?

see the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

I think you need to recheck your knowledgebase once again. There is no absolute right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into the superbowl at a time when suicide bombing are a real threat. There is a reasonable right to privacy, and the Supreme Court has always ruled that the need for privacy is vastly outweighed by the need for security in a time of war. It's no wonder President Roosevelt had every telex sent to the government for inspection. This tradition of intercepting communications is as old as the Constitution is, and has been affirmed on several occassions by the Supreme Court. Don't hold your breath.. err wait.. maybe you should.

"Terrorism only provided the OPPORTUNITY to pass measures like the "PATRIOT" Act--it did NOT provide the will to do so. "

Actually, terrorism provided a reason to pass measures like the Patriot Act. You just want to play politics with National Security, so you spin up ideological arguments like these that complacently ignore the entire history of our nation, and even worse, the reality of foreign countries who during peace, don't share a shred of the liberties that we enjoy during war. Try walking across the border into Canada or crossing the pond to the European Union and see see how those evil, fascist, nazi hitlers are 'spying'.

"The arrogant belief of the current administration and Congress that they are above the law and Constitution, and the reluctance of anyone (including in some cases the Supreme Court!) to rein them in, sharply if necessary"

What's arrogant in my opinion, is the unconsitutional belief that the Congress is the commander in chief of the military in a time of war, or that they have any power of military oversight. What's arrogant in my opinion is your insistance that the nation's safety should be threatened because you don't think the government should know who is calling terrorists.. for whatever paranoid, selfish reasons.

"I see. So they're really looking out for us, and they'll quit breaking the law just as soon as those other nasty people go away?"

A partisan politician's assertion that they are breaking the law isn't evidence of such misbehavior. Their power is constitutional, if only under the Supreme Court's determination that our traditions can determine what behavior is constitutional.. disregard that the Constitution places the entirety of power to wage war under the executive branch.. Congress only declares it, they do not exercise it.

Actually, HERE. for example, is the President's job: "Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take th

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[laughingcoyote]

Terrorists are not "imagined" and we are not "hysterical". They are dangerous people, and acts of terrorism can be prevented.

I 100% agree with you, and that is 100% irrelevant to my point, which was that going too far in terms of "prevention" can be as bad or worse then not enough. Tighter customs inspections and improved airport security are reasonable responses of reasonable scale and scope. Large-scale wiretapping and imprisonment without charge are not.

Horrible comparison, you are shielded from lightning in your car. I'm pretty sure you can't go out and play golf in a thunderstorm. Is it because people are hysterical and paranoid? No, it's because a practical effort of safety goes a long way in saving lives.

My point exactly! There are some responses to a risk which are reasonable (not standing with a lightning rod during a thunderstorm), and some which are hysterical or overkill--EVEN in response to very real risks. (You also didn't note that I mentioned car accidents, which are a heightened risk during inclement weather-and at some point, most people do get out of the car.)

I would simply argue that being complacent to the risks of terrorism makes another attack inevitable. After digging out rubble at the World Trade Center with my bare hands to try to uncover survivors, I'd rather see the government taking action to prevent attacks, than trying to recover from another attack, especially one that doesn't kill me, but instead devastates the city where I live and work.

I would argue that bombing out a country which was already a decently ripe recruiting ground for terrorists only strengthens their recruiting propaganda in that region. But that's another debate for another time.

As to your personal participation in helping out in the disaster zone, I certainly can say nothing bad for you on that note, and I can certainly understand where the source of your emotional investment in this matter stems from. Still, it is good to take a step back, and make sure that we're not just reacting with "SOMEONE has to do SOMETHING!" without thinking carefully about just how far "something" should go. There does come a point when we HAVE done enough.

Why bother building levees in New Orleans?

Again, reasonable response to a reasonable risk (and the failure to do it properly caused more death and damage then "terrorism" did!)

There is no absolute right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into the superbowl at a time when suicide bombing are a real threat.

Again, I can see why you think so, but I still must disagree. In the end, it's far too easily extensible.

"There is absolutely no right to anonymously carry a duffle bag into a (shopping mall|restaurant|park) when suicide bombings are a very real threat."

How many suicide bombing attempts did those random searches stop? And what's to stop the bomber, if such were to exist, from pushing the button the minute he sees the metal detector-and presumably while standing in a sizable crowd? Just how do you stop a guy that's willing to die in an effort to take out a few people with him?

There is a reasonable right to privacy, and the Supreme Court has always ruled that the need for privacy is vastly outweighed by the need for security in a time of war. It's no wonder President Roosevelt had every telex sent to the government for inspection.

What is this "time of war"? This is a "time of war" about as much as the "war on drugs" was. We're currently "at war" with a tinpot Third-World country whose military we destroyed in approximately five seconds, and with what amounts to an organized crime syndicate. World War II was a fight against -two- (not one, two) actively hostile superpowers who easily possessed the resources and will to invade the US and win. To say they're not in the same ballpark would be a gross understatement-they're not even in the same league.

This tradition of intercepting communications is as old

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[bogjobber]

The corrupt, and adulterous Republican neo-conservitive leaders found that it was an issue they could use to wrap the public around their fingers (AND IT WORKED, well enough to control congress and the executive branch within 4 years).

Sorry that I don't have enough time to write a more elaborate response, but this is wrong. The Republicans already controlled Congress, and had for some time (about 6 years I believe).

Yea, Reagan, I loved that old guy, it's too bad that the good parts of his legacy were co-opted by the self-serving neo-conservitive bastards who are now in firm control of our government

Reagan was a prick just like Bush, if he would've had the same license (i.e. the 2001 attacks and lack of public remembrance of Watergate) he would be doing the same asshole things. Remember, that was the guy who made "Reaganomics" and "family values" the basis of his platform.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[SmokedS]

Ok, more unbacked assertions, accompanied by ... more unbacked assertions of your opponent being wrong. Riveting argument there.

As for your statement about what this is all about: No no no no NO! The main issue is that it IS just an excuse. Terrorism has always been around, and will be around as long as there is gross injustice, most likely meaning forever. Citing terrorism as the reason for taking your freedom away at the same time as you claim they are attacking your freedom is asinine.

Bush:
"They are attacking your freedom. But don't worry, we'll fight it by taking your freedom!"
Do you honestly mean you cannot see what is wrong with that statement?

You are far more likely to die from traffic than terrorism.

Your leaders are using terrorism it as an excuse to take your privacy and freedom from you, and to invade other countries killing, at the very lowest of all estimates, several tens of thousands of innocents in the process.(But they're not terrorists right? They're the good guys right? Killing innocents is only bad if you're a terrorist right? It's not as if killing innocent babies is bad if it's the good guys doing it! Collateral damage, right?)

You should be able to see this since it's a strategy repeated throughout history.

As for your arguments along the lines of: "I'll stop arguing now because, I'm tired, I'm bored, I'm convinced you're wrong and hence don't need to argue the point. If you continue you're not playing by the rules of this discussion that I just made up."

I suggest you don't make controversial statements on slashdot unless you're willing to defend them.

Re:Well, it's only fair.

[Mac Degger]

I'll go you one further; the stated aim of OBL /is/ to promote terror. He has said that he hoped that his actions would get the US gov'mnt to enact such tight authority that it would create friction in the country. Oddly enough, Bush has actually done pretty much everything Osama has asked for.

Even stranger, that tape of OBL which came out near the elections had OBL actually stating that he hoped Bush would be re-elected because he was doing such a good job. I still have trouble believing that somehow Rove and co. actually managed to spin it so that the media/the country believed that OBL was rooting for Kerry. That, to me, is REALLY troubling; Goering stated how to get the people behind you, and that the masses were stupid...but this stupid?

Anyway, don't believe me? Go read the OBL transcripts yourself. If you can find them...they're not that easy to find on the intarweb.

Silly Europeans, don't worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure with a track record like the Bush Administration's, with domestic wiretapping, indefinite detentions and torture, acts of aggression and brinkmanship against sovereign nations, lying to the U.N., and managing to convince the majority of Americans that this was all incidental, that this access to data won't be abused. After so many mistakes, they've surely learnt their lessons now.

Re:Silly Europeans, don't worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bush Administration didn't convince anyone is was incidental, it convinced them that the alternative (Kerry) would have been worse. And he only marginally succeeded at doing that.

Sorry

[Mikya]

I have to apologize for the US. I didn't vote for Bush!

Re:Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't have the option of voting against him, which is why I'm not keen on him getting access to my ISP logs.

Re:Sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK. Some of us do actually know that many Americans are perfectly reasonable, intelligent people who are disgusted by the way their politicians behave.

Government for the people, truly.

[daeg]

Every time I think that the US comes out on top on violating basic rights to privacy, some country in the EU outdoes us. You'd think with such a rich history of war, the citizens would know better.

Tell us again...

[Lord Kano]

how it's no big deal when your European governments retain data on you because you know that they'd never misuse it.

LK

Re:Tell us again...

[Tablizer]

After J. Edgar Hoover, Lewis Libby, and Richard Nixon, it should be pretty obvious that government officials cannot be trusted with secrecy. The temptation is too strong, and we all know how successful politicians are at resisting urges to take shortcuts to get an advantage.

I don't get why consersatives who don't trust the gov't to guide the economy *do* trust it to manage private info well. If they F-up the economy, aren't they likely to F-up security as well? Somebody please explain this logic to me.

Re:Tell us again...

[Ohreally_factor]

The problem is that the GOP has been taken over by a gang of crooks that mouths conservative platitudes, but has long ago abandoned true conservatism.

No way.

[James A. V. Joyce]

Ohhhhh...no. No fucking way. This is some kind of joke, right? Because if not, the fact that the US government is not only willing to fuck over its own citizens but also to use its political largesse to dick with everyone else is just about enough for me to start condoning terrorism. This is essentially what this is, really - the implicit threat behind all of this smells terribly badly. I was already pissed off more than enough by the EU wanting to implement this in the first place.

I think that we (Europeans)

[ratta]

should absolutly try to solve this kind of problems together with our American fellows, since in a global world a problems for someone is also going to be a problem of all. I mean, please let's not start Yet Another Flamewar about EU vs USA.

Re:quid pro quo - US Retention Law is the Next Ste

[v1]

And how do you know that hasn't already happened?

Do you really think they'd make such a development public, rather than classifying it as "undisclosed for reasons of national security"?

The purpose of "national security" used to be to protect the citizens from foreign agents. Now it's merely a political tool to protect the politicians from their own citizens.

CRUNCH! KNERCH!

[mikiN]

...the sound of mobile phones and computers being crushed to bits. ...coming to a garbage truck NEAR YOU.

How long does this sick comedy have to go on before people decide it is time to kick all their stuff into the bin and go live in a cottage somewhere out in the woods with only the most basic amenities, keeping only a PO Box number for the bare essential communications?

I'm getting really pissed at the Powers That Be for pulling their virtual torture ropes ever tighter around privacy and personal liberty.

Soon people will decide that "Amish Paradise" is actually at a much more comfortable distance away from the proverbial Hell than the other alternatives.

(Kudos to Weird Al for making me borrow his song title.)

Erosion of civil liberties...

[X-rated Ouroboros]

...is a threat to national security.

Backwards

[mikesd81]

Only in America, the land of the free, can the government illegally spy on your phone calls, internet activity, and reading habits, and get away with it. Hell according to some poll, American citizens are OK with it. In my eyes it's treason what the gov't is doing. If this is the land of the free then why do I have to worry about what I'm saying on the phone when I'm talking to my friend about buying a firearm? Just the phrase "Let's go shooting today" can get me on a red list? Please.

I love my country, not my gov't.

Re:I am not a criminal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes. The last plea of the morally corrupt: "Everything I'm doing is completely legal."

Merely "legal" doesn't quite cut it when talking about subjects such as domestic spying, prisoner torture, or extra-judicial procedures like extraordinary rendition.

It also doesn't count for much when a few executive orders can throw secret laws onto the books as needed.

The constitutions of multiple countries seem irrelevant to our leaders. They think people will be satisfied if leaders follow the letter, instead of the principles, of the law. They think that extraordinary times justify violating principles indefinitely.

It's time for a new Magna Carta.

Re:Oh, I get it...

[payndz]

Echelon definitely exists, and will be automatically checking this post the moment I click on 'Submit'. James Bamford's excellent book about NSA, 'Body Of Secrets', goes into quite some detail about Echelon (whose members are the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - basically, if your country's predominantly white and English-speaking, you're in the club). Funnily enough, Bamford was one of the people targeted by NSA's 'First Fruits' phone and email surveillance program that kept (or may even still keep) an eye on journalists likely to expose information about NSA's activities.

NSA is, of course, entitled to email me to deny this. So they get the chance, I'll include a few Echelon keywords to make sure they pick this up: bomb assassinate Bush Blair Osama kill terror gas anthrax Chavez oil Castro Iran Iraq hijack suicide bomber 9/11 jihad. Hi guys!

There won't be.

[khasim]

I'd be surprised if with all this data retention and spying (both US and EU) there will be single terrorist caught *before* the act.

There won't be. And the simple reason is that there is too much "noise" to sort through to find "terrorists".

But ... it is popular with our government because it is "high tech" and doesn't cost as much as real experts doing real research.

All this will do is allow the government to find who you were calling after you've blown yourself up. They hope that that will lead them to someone higher up the chain.

It might.

But it is more dangerous because it can be used to track who your political opponents are calling and what they're saying to each other.

Our ForeFathers were willing to die fighting for their Freedom.

Now, our people are willing to surrender their Freedom for the "protection" offered by the government.

Re:Jeeeeezzz!!!

[alan.briolat]

Of course, "fighting terrorism" these days is doing everything within their power to blur the line between "terrorism" and normal "political dissent". Remember, if you are against the system, you are un-American, and therefore a potential danger to them. Their idea of a perfect world is one where they don't actually have to campaign to win elections - its just illegal to think about voting for someone else.

Well it does take some of the pressure off

[smchris]

Instead of people spending all their time wondering why we aren't doing anything to stop Dubya from setting up his 1000 Year Empire, they can take a moment to think about what they are doing to stop their own countries from capitulating to everything the U.S. demands.

Re:The Constitution is only a document.

[Vancorps]

The constitution is not just a document, it is the foundation for the law of this country. The checks and balances created to ensure that it remains the rule of law seem to be failing miserably these days. It will take education of the masses to make them realize what is happening. It is not the erosion of rights but the granting of powers to the government that it cannot and should not have.

Unfortunately the media on all sides seems to have forgotten what reporting is all about, seems like you have to read blogs out there to get straight information without opinions being shoved down your throat. The media is the powerful polarizing tool. Unless a person has millions of dollars to spread the word it cannot effectively be communicated to the people that matter. So people that disagree have to stand up and say something in the hopes of finding someone with the resources who agrees. It starts in places like these but yes, come election time I'm gonna have to get out and spread the word as much as I can just like I did around the last election.

Probably didn't make a big impact but its worth trying.

Re:How is this possible under EU law?

[Spad]

The government in the UK already regularly violates the Data Protection Act in the name of "fighting terrorism", I really can't see them being bothered about doing so on a larger scale.

Re:Jeeeeezzz!!!

[s_p_oneil]

The thing most people outside the US seem to forget is that approximately half of us in the US tried to oust that idiot in 2004, and more than half of us tried to keep him out of office in 2000 (he didn't win if you count the actual votes). Half of us are as angry about the current government as you are, and lately even the people who voted for him are having second thoughts about him.

The problem can be summed up in this bumper sticker I recently saw:
Right is wrong. Left is stupid.

That may not be true in other countries, but it definitely seems to be true here. Our election system is a farce of democracy, and we're stuck with those two choices: wrong and stupid. Hell, the media hand-picked John Kerry to run against Bush in 2004 because the Democrats here followed like sheep where the media pointed. The favorite in the primaries was turned away because the media (who likes Bush very much right now) turned against him. The current administration keeps telling other countries they need to be more democratic, all while they're tightening the screws on legislation to ensure that their party stays in office. It's enough to make half of us ashamed to be Americans. Most of the other half are clueless as to what is going on. (Actually, most of our half are, too.)